Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So TLJ does badly with superfans and also those without a cultural Star Wars legacy?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They are not all like this. Not at all. Only the prequels and sequels are like this, and they are widely disliked. (Well, Jedi also has a lot of issues, but at least wraps up the trilogy.). Do you really believe the original Star Wars and Empire are the same poor quality as the rest?

You've missed what he's saying. The point is that complaints like these ones, that a capital ship lacked any defense against fighters, those kinds of complaints are in the all the movies. ANH is a masterpieces, but it ended by firing a missile down an exhaust port that has no covering, something far more inexplicable than a dreadnought lacking AA guns. ESB is an even greater movie, but the first we see of the Empire has them using giant thousand ton APCs... that walk for some reason? And that walk so badly you can trip them over with a single cable that's just been magnet locked to the APC. And if you trip one of these things over, then suddenly your guns will be able to fire through its shields.

There's loads of military stuff in the Star Wars films that makes no sense. The military tech runs on a much higher level of rule of cool than 40K. So if people are going to say that a dreadnought lacking AA defences is an issue in TLJ, then they have to say that similar stuff exists in all the Star Wars movies.

Yes, but for different reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They are not all like this. Not at all. Only the prequels and sequels are like this, and they are widely disliked. (Well, Jedi also has a lot of issues, but at least wraps up the trilogy.). Do you really believe the original Star Wars and Empire are the same poor quality as the rest?

You've missed what he's saying. The point is that complaints like these ones, that a capital ship lacked any defense against fighters, those kinds of complaints are in the all the movies. ANH is a masterpieces, but it ended by firing a missile down an exhaust port that has no covering, something far more inexplicable than a dreadnought lacking AA guns. ESB is an even greater movie, but the first we see of the Empire has them using giant thousand ton APCs... that walk for some reason? And that walk so badly you can trip them over with a single cable that's just been magnet locked to the APC. And if you trip one of these things over, then suddenly your guns will be able to fire through its shields.

There's loads of military stuff in the Star Wars films that makes no sense. The military tech runs on a much higher level of rule of cool than 40K. So if people are going to say that a dreadnought lacking AA defences is an issue in TLJ, then they have to say that similar stuff exists in all the Star Wars movies.

That's a major point.

Another one is that the dreadnaught does have AA defences. They are the small gun turrets that Poe spends a lot of effort to blow up, having used the ruse of a parley to get within their effective arcs of fire..

sirlynchmob wrote:
the hoth scene makes sense actually, think back to many of the gun control conversations we've had. if any group actually rebelled against the government, do you think they would have access to weapons to stop a tank? Nope, the underdogs are always under equipped, it makes their win that much more impressive. Plus if you're always on the run the big guns probably get left behind.

Dude, the Rebellion had capital ships. They had an Ion Cannon capable of incapacitating a Star Destroyer. We can conclude that major elements of society were working with and supplying the rebels with major equipment.

That said, I didn't have a problem with that scene either. Major armies get caught on the hop by new enemy weapons. Sometimes they know about the weapon, but don't realise its numbers or its upgrades. Before the invasion of France the 75mm gun of the Sherman was deemed sufficient, as they felt it sufficient to penetrate the MkIV, and heavier tanks would be matched by specialist units. They didn't realise the Germans had upgraded the armour on the MkIV, and Panthers were far more common than they realised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Hey I'm with you on R1. How dumb is it that outsider/nobody Jyn Erso has to lecture the leadership of the Rebellion? Just like R1, TLJ promotes a boring character (Vice Admiral Ho Hum) at the expense of something already estalished with the audience (Poe's heroism). But TLJ is even more awkward about it because Holdo's silence is intended to make the audience suspicious of her/sympathetic to Poe's frustrations.

That was my point, by the way. I mean, I get that people want heroes in SW movies rather than, you know, fething idiotic failures. That's a great point and I agree with it. But the fact that audiences resent being hoodwinked by hamfisted screenwriting is a seperate point.

I think there was a delicate balance to find with Holdo not telling the escape plan from Poe. They needed to give us reason to believe Poe's actions were necessary, but then understand Holdo's actions when the revelation came. They didn't find the balance, they went too far in making Holdo hide the plan.

But even if they'd got the balance perfect, almost everyone that disliked that part of the film would still have disliked it, because of the nature of the scene itself.

I think you're wrong in saying they sacrificed Poe's heroism. Being a hero isn't about always make the right choice. That's unfortunately how it works out in lots of movies, but that's only because people want power fantasies about always being right, rather than actual heroes. That's why I really liked that part of TLJ, it showed heroes who screw up, make a bad call, but then keep going, keep trying to do the right thing. It was far from perfectly executed, but as I hinted at above, I'm not sure the execution is actually what most people had a problem with, it was the very concept itself.

Has ESB slipped your mind? The film where Han decides to hide out at Cloud City and ends up in carbonite as a result? The film where Luke rushes off to save his buds only to get his hand chopped off and find out Vader's his dad? Nobody complains about this stuff. To the contrary, ESB is widely considered a fantatsic movie by fans, critics, and people who don't care about Star Wars.

It's not just that Finn and Poe make mistakes. It's that they are failures, and for no good reason. It's pretty obvious that Rian Johnson doesn't even want Finn in the movie, so he gets to tag along with Rose for slapstick. Leia is flat-out wrong about the bombers. Holdo is a flat-out terrible leader. But somehow these women are supposed to teach Poe lessons?

Furthermore, if you like heroes that screw up then you must hate Rey.

http://www.starwars.com/news/critical-opinion-the-empire-strikes-back-original-reviews

Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?

I think the point is that people's reactions to the second part of a trilogy is likely to change after the third part, as happened with critical response to ESB after the trilogy was wrapped up.

After all, the only thing which prevents ESB from having plot hooks that go nowhere is the fact they are tied up in RotJ. If RotJ started with Han already rescued, for example, that plot point of him being frozen in carbonite would have been a waste of time overall in ESB.

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?

I think there is an element of that. Whether it is due to revisionism or the golden spectacles of nostalgia or other reasons.

Another critique I read said that ESB was quite criticised in its time and the two films are both bridge films in their series, which is a difficult position to occupy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking for myself, I enjoyed both films about equally on first viewing in the cinema.

Casting my mind back to 1980, I think I felt a bit disappointed that the ending of ESB was clearly a pointer to an inevitable sequel. This kind of sequelitis was far less common in those days than it is now. However, once the whole saga was wrapped up in RotJ, the series of three makes a satisfying whole.

 Manchu wrote:
Has ESB slipped your mind? The film where Han decides to hide out at Cloud City and ends up in carbonite as a result? The film where Luke rushes off to save his buds only to get his hand chopped off and find out Vader's his dad? Nobody complains about this stuff. To the contrary, ESB is widely considered a fantatsic movie by fans, critics, and people who don't care about Star Wars.

Oh, they did complain a lot back in the day. Australia's largest fan-club for SW had complaints letters whinging about how it ruined their childhood, and they completely screwed up the luke character, etc, etc.

It's the best of the original trilogy, but it's still far from a good movie. Me, I like bits in most of the movies (except those execrable ewok films), even if I dislike other bits of those same movies. Take what you like, discard the rest, move on. Stop fighting what you hate, and save that which you love instead.

Another one is that the dreadnaught does have AA defences. They are the small gun turrets that Poe spends a lot of effort to blow up, having used the ruse of a parley to get within their effective arcs of fire..

That bit I fully agree with and was the best action sequence in the film (despite the slightly silly bombers), Poe takes out the AA defences, the Rebels fly in and blow up the big capital ship even as the Commander is lamenting the idiocy of the overall commander in not having fighter cover already launched. All makes sense within the narrative.

That's unfortunately how it works out in lots of movies, but that's only because people want power fantasies about always being right, rather than actual heroes. That's why I really liked that part of TLJ, it showed heroes who screw up, make a bad call, but then keep going, keep trying to do the right thing. It was far from perfectly executed, but as I hinted at above, I'm not sure the execution is actually what most people had a problem with, it was the very concept itself

But that's now what happens in most movies - the hero/ heroine usually makes mistakes - there is absolutely nothing new in this film that's not been done so many times, the idea that there is anything new or indeed "subversive" is laughable, Even looking at the previous Star Wars films -the main cast often screw up and keep going, hell that's most of ESB! Again I really wish you wouldn't decide you now what other people think.

They needed to give us reason to believe Poe's actions were necessary, but then understand Holdo's actions when the revelation came. They didn't find the balance, they went too far in making Holdo hide the plan. But even if they'd got the balance perfect, almost everyone that disliked that part of the film would still have disliked it, because of the nature of the scene itself.

Again you are making assumptions about people and why they disliked it. The execution was so awful that its hard to say whether it would have worked or not, a competent director and writing team can do wonders with most plots. Also the pay off is terrible - Poe mutinies in the middle of a battle (well slow slow chase) and Leia and Admiral laugh it off with "well he is cute", that's awful is it not?

There was something there about the fighters needing to return to the cover of the capital ships, or something. It might have been after a couple of the FO fighters got wipied, maybe. This was a bit that should have been shown better, I agree. Probably by showing the Rebels begin to react, and have Poe or maybe even Rose scramble some kind of AA defense and start popping the fighters.

They specifically call out to Ben to return as he is not under their ships cover or something - despite the ships also being out of range (great work script) - there is simply no reason shown why the rest of the fleet don't launch any expendable fighters is not clear or even qualified, you just needed someone on the Imperial Bridge saying

"I will mop them up with fighters sir" "No I want to enjoy this" or some other nonsense - we know that the commander is a bit of prat and a short exchange like this would have helped. But this is all over the place in the film - its so lazily written.

You were supposed to read it as the natural outcome of someone repeating a point many times, and finally saying it with some exasperation. We'll use someone in public, like you suggested. Consider everyone sitting in a big circle, discussing TLJ. One person suggests there's some bigger reasons for the negative reaction but he's not sure what they are, though he doesn't think they're related to the patriarchy stuff that some people have suggested. Then for the next 20 minutes people kept telling him it isn't the patriarchy and that he's wrong for saying it was the patriarchy, to which he keeps replying he doesn't think it is the patriarchy and made a point of saying that in his first post. But people hear that, and then keep saying he is wrong for saying it was the patriarchy.

Would you think it totally out of the blue if that guy eventually said 'its not the fething patriarchy and I fething made that clear from the beginning?' Would you consider that man angry for eventually responding forcefully? Or would you think he was exasperated, and looking for a way to make a point people should have realised the first time he said, and every time after that?

We are not all sitting in a circle of friends - I don't know you, have no context, have no history with you and vice versa. Its a bunch of strangers chatting about a film, somewhat awkwardly as none of us know each other. Then as we are chatting, several people say nah we didn't like this film and give general reasons - boring, length, lack of characterisation etc. Some agree, some disagree.

Then one member of the group keeps saying - "yeah but that's not the real reason is it - I know you say that but you don't really mean it, there is something else behind what you are saying".

The people challenged in the group look at each other and this other stranger a little askance and say "what? What do you mean"

He doesn't elaborate but just says, "yeah you might think this is your reasons but no its your subconscious talking, I am pretty sure I know what your real reasons are but I am not going to tell you."

The people get a bit confused, " So what are you saying, these are the specific things we don't like?"
"Nope I won't accept those reasons, that's not why you didn't like it"
"Say what? You think X, Y or Z but we are not saying that?"
"No not really, but its something else?"
"Well what?"
"I can't tell you but its not the reasons you think it is or what you are saying."

And then when people get irritated by this repeated line - that person is surprised - can you not see why we found this irritating?

What I don't understand is given all the problems with the film - some of which even the most ardent defenders agree with - why are the critics so positive, what has made them do this when similar and often lesser plot problems are ripped into with gusto in action films. I am much more suspicious of their reasons than people chatting about it.

I think the reason is the disproportionate reaction to what really seem pretty trivial examples of "bad script" or "bad plot".

As you said, the point about not launching fighters could easily be solved by a single line saying "Let's not because a reason" but it's hard to see why the lack of this line ruins the film.

I personally thought the script and plot were fine. The one thing that annoyed me while I was watching it was Admiral Hondo, but her plotline resolves and in retrospect it can be seen as a way of increasing dramatic tension in the audience. In other words, for me to get annoyned was exactly the reaction the plot/script was intended to create, and made it much more understandable why some crew were impelled to desert/escape and others to mutiny. I sat there thinking "WTF is Hondo doing, hasn't she got a plan?" not "This is a crappy plot and script."

I honestly think this whole sequence would have been much less emotionally involving if it had been given even a small amount of exposition to clarify Hondo's thinking.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the reason is the disproportionate reaction to what really seem pretty trivial examples of "bad script" or "bad plot".

As you said, the point about not launching fighters could easily be solved by a single line saying "Let's not because a reason" but it's hard to see why the lack of this line ruins the film.

I personally thought the script and plot were fine. The one thing that annoyed me while I was watching it was Admiral Hondo, but her plotline resolves and in retrospect it can be seen as a way of increasing dramatic tension in the audience. In other words, for me to get annoyned was exactly the reaction the plot/script was intended to create, and made it much more understandable why some crew were impelled to desert/escape and others to mutiny. I sat there thinking "WTF is Hondo doing, hasn't she got a plan?" not "This is a crappy plot and script."

I honestly think this whole sequence would have been much less emotionally involving if it had been given even a small amount of exposition to clarify Hondo's thinking.

Hmm sort of - but for me I sat there thinking exactly that - if it had been one thing here and there - no probs its an action movie - no movie ever made is perfect and often suspension of disbelif is vital to enjoy the film. but here, for this film I found myself going Wtf in every scene that inovled someone from the Shp of Fools - wether that be the mutiny adn its (lack of ) consequences for the mutiniers, the lack of fighters, the Imeprial ships doing nothing, the rebels doing nothing - just killed any immersion and indeed just became boring.

Its a steady rolling build up or so many moments that could have been shown better, could have been written better, could have been directed better but were not, that end up building to a mountain of rubbish.

and at the end of the film as the three of us were walking out we turned to each other and said - "well that was crap." Not that was a bad Star Wars film, just that it was a bad film and a bad experience not to be repeated when the next one comes out. we even blamed one of the group as her choices of films seemed to be jinxed - she had persuded us to watch Geostorm (sadly) - although looking at the two - Geostrom was they better of the two very poor films.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the reason is the disproportionate reaction to what really seem pretty trivial examples of "bad script" or "bad plot".

As you said, the point about not launching fighters could easily be solved by a single line saying "Let's not because a reason" but it's hard to see why the lack of this line ruins the film.

I personally thought the script and plot were fine. The one thing that annoyed me while I was watching it was Admiral Hondo, but her plotline resolves and in retrospect it can be seen as a way of increasing dramatic tension in the audience. In other words, for me to get annoyned was exactly the reaction the plot/script was intended to create, and made it much more understandable why some crew were impelled to desert/escape and others to mutiny. I sat there thinking "WTF is Hondo doing, hasn't she got a plan?" not "This is a crappy plot and script."

I honestly think this whole sequence would have been much less emotionally involving if it had been given even a small amount of exposition to clarify Hondo's thinking.

The problem with Holdo's "choice" isn't that it creates tension. Tension is good.

The problem is that it is done not because of an organic reason for the character, but simply to create tension.
As a result, it creates this weird "I created tension because it creates tension", when in a good script, it should be "I created tension, because my character would do X". Creating tension is not a good reason to create tension, which is exactly what Holdo does.

I disliked Holdo. And that's exactly what the film wanted me to do. Kudos for prompting that reaction. However, when I realised HOW they prompted that dislike, I was angry at the script, for lazily manipulating the audience.

As an example, say you and I have an intellectual challenge. I challenge you that I can make you laugh at something. You agree, and go in expecting the "showing you something funny, telling you a joke" thing. Instead, I tickle you and force you to laugh. It's not smart, it's not witty, it's forced human reaction - and that's what the script does.
It doesn't give good reasons or development to create a natural tension, so it withholds information which would naturally have been there. It's forced tension, because the situations for that tension are falsely manipulated.

Again - the tension isn't an issue. When Holdo wasn't telling the plan, I was annoyed at her. However, when the wool was pulled off my eyes, I saw there was no reasonable explanation for WHY she withheld that information, except to create tension. It's like "why did you punch them in the face?" "so I could punch them in the face". It exists only to fulfil itself.

In the case of Holdo, I am happy to rationalise possible reasons why her plan was not explicated within the film because it enables the dramatic tension of the chase sequence to be maintained and exagerrated.

 sebster wrote:

Your response is incoherent, because the explanation given in the supporting materials was fine. Because there was nothing wrong with it you lurched from complaining that there's no possible answer to complaining that the answer should have been in the film. Now that I've pointed out to you that you changed your complaint, you've decided to go back to complaining that the explanation was no good. But of course, you've done that without giving a single complaint about the explantion, because you're just making this up as you go along.

I) I already said that moving the discussion to the additional material does NOTHING. There is just too much too explain to fill the gap when one watches the movie. One is pulled out from the movie, immersion is broken, enjoyment is lessened and going to "fix it" post-movie, reading a bunch of glorified fanfiction is not going to help.
II) I refuse to accept explanations outside the movie, especially if these esplanation are written by glorified fanfiction writers hired to fill all the gaps the movie writers left. And I refuse to accept a lot of crap I read here and everywhere, convoluted explanations that make no sense with the premises left in RotJ, the universe, and basic logic. But naturally, I am the one making things up.

You trimmed the quote, again. to hide the part where I explain how you failed. That isn't honest. And you are resorting to these dihonest tactics because your claims are falling apart.

You are not in the condition to call anyone dishonest here. Declaring that "I failed" is not enough. Is post after post after post that you have an axe to grind and no substance in your statements.

That's right, its info not included in the movie. Which you'll note I've said many times is an actual complaint that can be made about TFA.

And this a fundamental one. The movie is filled with that garbage.

Whereas your complaint, that Starkiller was dumb because it was a one shot weapon in a movie that showed it charging for a second shot... was a very silly complaint.

I cannot genuinely understand if you have an axe to grind, you are being genuinely obtuse or else.

Pointing out your confusion is a necessary component of moving this conversation forward. It's only once we recognise where you're at that we can start going forward.

There is not confusion barring the one you are making yourself. You continually move the goalpost genuinely convinced that you are contributing to the discussion whatsoever, while in your last post you just conceded the basic points I was attacking (that started the discussion), while being undeservedly condescending. You are the one that keeps bringing up fanfiction, books, made up explanations, history - anything barring what is in the movie (that you already accepted as incoherent). Reread what you wrote and try to grasp the logic passages if you can.

Here's your actual line;
"2b) let's ignore the stupidity of the weapon, that can only shoot once"
So now we have to believe that when you said the weapon can only shoot once, your problem was that it had a limited number of shots, but more than one.

This is why I cannot understand if you are doing it intentionally, or you genuinely believe what you write.
The pont is the SK base lacking FTL . Is not shown in the movie. Even if the weapon shoots twice instead of once, is an awfully low amount of shots for a galaxy-threatening weapon. Since such weapon is not shown FTL travelling, and consumes suns, it remains stupid even if it shoots twice. Again, you ignored any logic or context and just focused on the exact words. If it shot twice is irrelevant, during the attack is shown absorbing another sun. When that sun is consumed, what they are going to do? If the weapon is a planet, has an orbit. Are they going to detach it from this orbit for another star? It will take ages. But yeah. These are the same guy that have shown the beams go obviously FTL, but then take their good time befor hitting the planet.

For all this angst, you still haven't managed to explain exactly what real world intergalactic empire growth rates you're using to decide the FO grew implausibly quickly. After all, if using historic empires is 'preposterous', then you must have some real intergalactic empires to compare to.

I don't have to explain anything. The writers have to explain it in a plausible way. You have to find a decent example/parallelism and none of you is doing a good job.

I can use Shakespeare if you want. Othello perhaps. I just used the prequels because its the closest comparison, and one I knew you'd be familiar with. The quality of the piece doesn't matter, what was important is you realising that your earlier claim, that stories are always about making the hero and villain as clever as possible was wrong. Many writers will make a deliberate choice to make a mistake, even a foolish one, to say something about the character.

Now I want to hear it with Othello, go ahead. I suppose is like with the Franks. If is a comparison with something old enough, it looks intellectual so it must be true.
Also, I am sure that we could eventually find a story in which the writers did a good job and have shown, build, a plausible downfall. But we are not discussing one of these stories, I am afraid. Your point is essentially "LOOK THERE ARE OTHER STORIES THAT DON'T SUCK" which is true. We knew that. But this one is written like crap.

Oh wow. And now you say using leitmotif was a comparison. So it turns out you maybe don't understand what comparison means, either.

The quality of the comparison does not undermine my points. You are still focusing on this because (I) is your tactics to undermine the peole you argue with, in a more or less overt manner (II) you are not bringing actual arguments.
I start to understand that you think yourself as intellectually superior, this explain your dismissing behaviour, suggesting that people "don't know what they think", or focusing on petty details in order to lecture others. The harsh truth is different.
I am not going to be troubled by a conversation in internet, I enjoyed the discussion with anyone else here - I just hope you don't behave like this with people in your life. Is absolutely maddening.

If you think the AGM of a $55 billion dollar company are filled with questions about how a single film only returned 75% of its predecessor, then you just have no clue how major business operatesy. If you think those questions would be angry because TLJ only grossed $1.3bn on a $200m investment, then we're dealing with something far greater than just business ignorance.

AGM or not, someone will be questioned, especially after Solo if it does not stand on its legs.
1.3b vs 2b is 65% but does not matter, they are going to get some more since the movie is still in theaters.
In these days, sequels are expected to gross as much. There are 700m less you have to explain. This is not a joke.
TLJ started like TFA, but has an historical week-to-week drop. The drop is a record by itself, I linked it some post ago. This is not a joke.
China is a big market for blockbusters, and this is the third movie, in decline instead rising compared to the others. This is not a joke.
They paid 4b for SW, in 2012.
People will be asked questions for this, I cannot believe in the opposite.

Also, do you think that all of that 1.3b goes to disney? Half of that is american, 65% goes to disney. The rest has a lesser return. so is 600-700m
Plus you have to add marketing. For big blockbusters is huge, like 50% of the production cost afaik. And we see SW everywhere. So is more 300m cost (best case scenario but I think we are close to 100% here), 700m cashed in. Which is good, but less impressive of what you make it sound.
Meanwhile, the brand could be damaged and more and more people upset, losing enthusiasm for the franchise. Not necessarily showing up next time, or buying merchandise.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/-star-wars-toy-sales-fall-in-2017-as-movie-tie-fatigue-sets-in

I mean, were you predicting similar angry questions when Rogue One 'only' grossed $1bn? That was a $700m drop from TFA.

R1 is a spinoff. Is not the main story. This is the main story with the characters of the old trilogy and the new ones. R1 is targeted at the old farts.
TLJ at everyone. Is not nearly enough the same situation.

Not coincidence, contrivance. This is one of those really simple things. Marvel has been ludicrously profitable. Whedon himself delivered them what was at the time the third highest grossing film in history. After that he oversaw creative in the film division, during which time we saw the most extraordinary streak of commercial success we will see in any major studio in any of our lifetimes. Disney isn't going to remove anyone from that team because a single film project was slightly less profitable than hoped.

I think we can only wait and see. Rumors say Johnson is still getting the trilogy but hey. What happens next will be quite interesting to see.

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?

I've never trusted them. Just look at any cult classic, hated by critics, loved by many.

Also Disney bans critics from previews if they don't like their coverage. see LA times. So critics won't be as critical as they're now stepping on egg shells now to not offend the movie makers.

The user reviews are the more telling number and the one I'd put more stock into. 97% ESB, 49% last jedi, which closely mirrors the poll here on dakka.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?

I've never trusted them. Just look at any cult classic, hated by critics, loved by many.

Also Disney bans critics from previews if they don't like their coverage. see LA times. So critics won't be as critical as they're now stepping on egg shells now to not offend the movie makers.

The user reviews are the more telling number and the one I'd put more stock into. 97% ESB, 49% last jedi, which closely mirrors the poll here on dakka.

Exactly.
[Emperor throne room voice] Oh no.. those apples looked so nice close to the oranges...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?

I think the point is that people's reactions to the second part of a trilogy is likely to change after the third part, as happened with critical response to ESB after the trilogy was wrapped up.

After all, the only thing which prevents ESB from having plot hooks that go nowhere is the fact they are tied up in RotJ. If RotJ started with Han already rescued, for example, that plot point of him being frozen in carbonite would have been a waste of time overall in ESB.

I agree 100%. If IX turns out to be garbage, people's opinions of TLJ will be validated. However, I'm gonna wait til IX before I declare TLJ the worst SW movie. I went into the film with this expectation and was able to really enjoy it, even more the 2nd time.

The point of that post is that many people had VERY similar opinions about ESB in 1980. if the internet had existed back then, there would probably be tons of backlash.
But then RotJ came out and tied everything up nicely. In retrospect, ESB then became hailed as THE best SW movie.
So why don't we just cool our jets and wait for IX?

-

 Galef wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?

I think the point is that people's reactions to the second part of a trilogy is likely to change after the third part, as happened with critical response to ESB after the trilogy was wrapped up.

After all, the only thing which prevents ESB from having plot hooks that go nowhere is the fact they are tied up in RotJ. If RotJ started with Han already rescued, for example, that plot point of him being frozen in carbonite would have been a waste of time overall in ESB.

I agree 100%. If IX turns out to be garbage, people's opinions of TLJ will be validated. However, I'm gonna wait til IX before I declare TLJ the worst SW movie. I went into the film with this expectation and was able to really enjoy it, even more the 2nd time.

The point of that post is that many people had VERY similar opinions about ESB in 1980. if the internet had existed back then, there would probably be tons of backlash.
But then RotJ came out and tied everything up nicely. In retrospect, ESB then became hailed as THE best SW movie.
So why don't we just cool our jets and wait for IX?

-

When I watched TFA and I said it sucked, people told me "the following movie will clarify your doubt"
Now that TLJ is even worse, and more divisive, I have to hear "the following movie will wrap things up".
For me is amazing because it lies on the assumption that I have to like, or at least to watch, a Star Wars movie and appreciate it whatsoever. It adds to the narrative that if I don't like it I am sexist, or I watch the movies wrong. In this case, is that I am not patient enough - I want a decent story now - how entitled I am!
I mean, really? What Kathleen Kennedy has to do to make you stop falling for this? Shoot your dog while she high-fives J.J.? Scratch your car while laughing at you, pointing the finger?

 sebster wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They are not all like this. Not at all. Only the prequels and sequels are like this, and they are widely disliked. (Well, Jedi also has a lot of issues, but at least wraps up the trilogy.). Do you really believe the original Star Wars and Empire are the same poor quality as the rest?

You've missed what he's saying. The point is that complaints like these ones, that a capital ship lacked any defense against fighters, those kinds of complaints are in the all the movies. ANH is a masterpieces, but it ended by firing a missile down an exhaust port that has no covering, something far more inexplicable than a dreadnought lacking AA guns. ESB is an even greater movie, but the first we see of the Empire has them using giant thousand ton APCs... that walk for some reason? And that walk so badly you can trip them over with a single cable that's just been magnet locked to the APC. And if you trip one of these things over, then suddenly your guns will be able to fire through its shields.

There's loads of military stuff in the Star Wars films that makes no sense. The military tech runs on a much higher level of rule of cool than 40K. So if people are going to say that a dreadnought lacking AA defences is an issue in TLJ, then they have to say that similar stuff exists in all the Star Wars movies.

Yes, people have always complained about the silly walkers, the small numbers of TIE fighters, the exhaust port and so on. It's why I didn't find the Dreadnaught scene to be much of an issue even though the dumb bombers bugged me. However, the entire film is built around a military chase scene that makes no sense. It's not just one silly action shot, like the tripping Walker. The whole film hinges upon a silly premise that becomes more and more stupid as time passes. If one nitpick is a little annoyance like a bee sting, then this film has made an African Killer Bee swarm out of those nitpicks. To make matters worse, there are already three good Star Wars films that demonstrate the limits of the setting to set up obstacles for their heroes to overcome, and TLJ blunders through that established setting and tramples it until it breaks. If there were just a few silly little nitpicks, like catwalks without safety handrails, they would be easy to dismiss. Whenever the entire plot of the story revolves around a problem that shouldn't exist in this universe, that's a dealbreaker (for anyone who cares about the OT more than just lol Star Wars who cares).

 Galef wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?

I think the point is that people's reactions to the second part of a trilogy is likely to change after the third part, as happened with critical response to ESB after the trilogy was wrapped up.

After all, the only thing which prevents ESB from having plot hooks that go nowhere is the fact they are tied up in RotJ. If RotJ started with Han already rescued, for example, that plot point of him being frozen in carbonite would have been a waste of time overall in ESB.

I agree 100%. If IX turns out to be garbage, people's opinions of TLJ will be validated. However, I'm gonna wait til IX before I declare TLJ the worst SW movie. I went into the film with this expectation and was able to really enjoy it, even more the 2nd time.

The point of that post is that many people had VERY similar opinions about ESB in 1980. if the internet had existed back then, there would probably be tons of backlash.
But then RotJ came out and tied everything up nicely. In retrospect, ESB then became hailed as THE best SW movie.
So why don't we just cool our jets and wait for IX?
-

Nope, I wasted my time and my money on a rubbsh film, I may watch it on Sky when it comes on but the cinema forget it. TFA ws fun - this was garbage, another film will make no difference to that opinion even if the next film was the best in the unioverse - the fudemental flaws in the film are too great,

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the case of Holdo, I am happy to rationalise possible reasons why her plan was not explicated within the film because it enables the dramatic tension of the chase sequence to be maintained and exagerrated.

You don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to be happy to rationalize a conceit that doesn't work at face value, do you? The tension was contrived. Usually people feel cheated when they find out they invested emotion into what is essentially an illusion.

There are so many ways that they could have kept the audience's tension without requiring her to pointlessly feth with the crew and another officer that I don't feel obliged to rationalize or excuse the film's poor choice.

Right.


Having had a proper think over the movie that I saw two nights ago! It's time for my opinion!


Firstly, it's apparent that nobody in this movie, be it characters or creators, has ever picked up a physics book. Lasers don't have a limited range in space dammit!

Also, are these new ships armoured in tissue paper or something? The Dreadnought gets hit by those bombs and they seem to absolutely punch through the armour like its made of paper. They aren't even penetration bombs, they literally look like the bombing deck from a WW2 aircraft, and why the hell are those bombers so slow and how the hell are they using gravity to land them? What if the dreadnought was facing the other way? Don't they have shields? Why were they so close that they blew up on collateral damage!

But I'm not going to nit pick, but it appears that in addition to picking up parts from the previous films (Rey on the Bridge seeing the fleet get destroyed, although how did Snoke know about that? Nobody told him?) the skimmers looking a little bit like the Bespin fighters, the whole last fight basically being a poorly done version of Hoth and the fact that Kylo looks like he stole Anakin's outfit from RotS, they also picked up the prequel series' god awful toning issues. What kind of film is this supposed to be? We have a serious life or death situation filled with bad humour, well that ruins that. You can the comedy moments on the Casino World mingled with slavery issues and people getting blown up in transports.


All the tension in the film is made for tensions sake. How do the First Order know how much fuel the Mon Calamari has left? In fact, why the heck is it burning fuel! That's not how fuel works in space dammit! Why didn't they transfer the crews and fuel to the main cruiser at the start? In fact, why the hell didn't they turn around one of the smaller ships and hyperdrive that into the chasing fleet. It obviously works because Hux craps his pants when he realises that's exactly what Holdo's doing.

Also, how did she know that Poe was demoted? Leia tells him seconds before the First Order attacks again, when did she have the time to write it down? I could go into the tactical stupidity of not launching a CAP as soon as you jump out of hyperspace, but this isn't BSG.

And as for Holdo herself, I don't buy all this need to know basis. Poe is probably the most experienced pilot on the ship at this time. I don't buy the issues of trust, because no one on board suspects a spy, because no one mentions it. Also, people are fueling up those transports, so she must have told some people something. Like possibly the pilots of said shuttles who are probably wondering why the shuttes are using the fuel that the Rebels are lacking. Surely the bridge crew must have known something, and yet the bridge member who joins in the mutiny doesn't say anything either. And why was she staying back on the ship? It was flying itself fine without anyone on the bridge at that moment. Maybe you should have turned around and provided some covering fire to your escaping allies. That might have been a good idea? Maybe after doing that you could then hyperspeed the ship if that's what you wanted.


But yeah, this film frustrates me.

"Forget the past. Kill it, if you have to."

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
When I watched TFA and I said it sucked, people told me "the following movie will clarify your doubt"
Now that TLJ is even worse, and more divisive, I have to hear "the following movie will wrap things up".

J. J. Abrams isn't known for writing satisfying conclusions at the best of times, he's known for the mystery box and Ponzi storytelling. And that's without Rian Johnson cutting all his plot hooks and leaving him with nothing but a dozen people in a light freighter with no allies to call on.

 Scrabb wrote:
"Forget the past. Kill it, if you have to."

"But don't forget to watch our Han Solo movie, coming soon!"

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
When I watched TFA and I said it sucked, people told me "the following movie will clarify your doubt"
Now that TLJ is even worse, and more divisive, I have to hear "the following movie will wrap things up".

J. J. Abrams isn't known for writing satisfying conclusions at the best of times, he's known for the mystery box and Ponzi storytelling. And that's without Rian Johnson cutting all his plot hooks and leaving him with nothing but a dozen people in a light freighter with no allies to call on.

"Ponzi storytelling" is beautiful. Is the best way to define J.J.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
When I watched TFA and I said it sucked, people told me "the following movie will clarify your doubt"
Now that TLJ is even worse, and more divisive, I have to hear "the following movie will wrap things up".

J. J. Abrams isn't known for writing satisfying conclusions at the best of times, he's known for the mystery box and Ponzi storytelling. And that's without Rian Johnson cutting all his plot hooks and leaving him with nothing but a dozen people in a light freighter with no allies to call on.

Huh. He did that before JJ was announced as the director for IX, right? Now karma finally has JJ in its grasp.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the case of Holdo, I am happy to rationalise possible reasons why her plan was not explicated within the film because it enables the dramatic tension of the chase sequence to be maintained and exagerrated.

You don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to be happy to rationalize a conceit that doesn't work at face value, do you? The tension was contrived. Usually people feel cheated when they find out they invested emotion into what is essentially an illusion.

There are so many ways that they could have kept the audience's tension without requiring her to pointlessly feth with the crew and another officer that I don't feel obliged to rationalize or excuse the film's poor choice.

I think it does work at face value. I don't care that the tension was contrived, that is the purpose of dramatic script writing.

I think the entire chase sequence works and I don't understand why people say it's a ludicrous thing that never could happen in real life. (Points to the Battle of the River Plate, the Battle of the Falklands, etc.)

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don't feel obliged to rationalize or excuse the film's poor choice

Pretty important point here. Similarly, I don't feel obliged to depend upon a hypothetical sequel to validate the movie to hand. (By the way, ESB is not critically acclaimed thanks to RotJ.) Despite having a sense of fun entirely absent from The Last Jedi, The Force Awakens irritatingly asked me to care about a character about whom it refused to tell me anything. It's not good enough to say, keep buying the product if you want to know XYZ. Whether I want to know XYZ is separate matter from whether any given movie deserves praise or criticism on its own terms.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't care that the tension was contrived, that is the purpose of dramatic script writing.

I get that you find contrived writing personally acceptable. But, again, the question is whether the writing is contrived - and you seem to agree with Bob, myself, and others that the answer is yes.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:
"Forget the past. Kill it, if you have to."

"But don't forget to watch our Han Solo movie, coming soon!"

Bravo! In fairness, I don't think Rian Johnson is using Kylo Ren as his mouthpiece there. After all, Rey explicitly refuses to take his advice and we are left by the end of The Last Jedi - despite all the "subverted expectations" - with the same old goodies versus baddies scenario.